Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communications makes use of both an M2M service plane provided by an M2M service provider network and a transport plane provided by an access network. For example, an M2M device has an access-network part, such as a cellular modem and stored access network identifiers or credentials that allow the device to establish a communications bearer with an access network. In turn, the M2M device has an M2M part, e.g., an M2M application and corresponding subscription credentials, for communicating with an M2M service provider that is reachable via communications carried through the access network.
In some instances the access network provider and the M2M service provider are one and the same. In other instances they are separate entities. In cases where the access network provider and the M2M service provider are distinct from each other, the access network provider bills the M2M service provider for the usage of the access network.
In turn, the M2M service provider generally will bill its customers for the access network charges. In general, access networks assess usage charges based on the access network identifier of the device in question, such as a Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Number (MSISDN) or an IP or domain name address assigned to the device. This approach is workable from the perspective of the M2M service provider if all of the M2M traffic to/from the device is associated with one entity, e.g., with a single M2M application, or if a single M2M service provider is associated with a single device.
However, many M2M devices can run a plurality of M2M applications and each application may be associated with a different billing entity. In such cases, the access network address or identifier of the M2M device provides insufficient granularity for billing different M2M services used by the same M2M device, and will not allow the M2M service provider to properly invoice its customers for the data consumed by their respective M2M applications.
Similar problems arise from the perspective of the access network provider, inasmuch as an M2M device that runs a plurality of different applications, each application communicating with at least one different M2M service provider, may result in a situation where the access network provider will not have sufficient information to determine who to bill for each transaction. This circumstance could result in the owner of the M2M device paying both access network and M2M service provider network charges and it complicates properly allocating access network charges with respect to different M2M services running on the same device, and such splitting of charges between M2M service providers is not commonly done.